EXAMS' TIME: STUDY AS LESS AS YOU CAN

Back to the original purpose of this thread: As sad as it is, there often is no correlation between how hard one studies and their grades. Sure, there is the whole "study smart, not hard" argument. However, the reality is in law school you will often get grades you never anticipated after taking an exam. It's the most arbitrary system ever in most law schools and it is just something one deals with.

agreed. completely arbitrary.

I spent five days straight (after finishing my outline) studying for an exam last semester only to find out that somehow some of the students in the class got a hold on the answer key to the exam (another professor gave out our exam as a practice exam for his class). Anyway, five days of studying was enough for an average grade in that class when that other crap was factored in.

Time spent studying definitely impacts the range of grades one can expect on an exam, albeit to a limited extent. Look at it in extremes -- the guy who spends 6 months studying torts is going to do better than the guy who started studying Monday. Nobody disputes this. And yet if this is true, the same logic applies to the projected grade ranges for the student who studied 6 weeks before exams and the student who pulled 4 all nighters the week before -- intelligence and other external factors aside, the former will always do better.

Sure there is an arbitrary element to law school grading, but it's NOT a complete crapshoot. The people who say this are the medians who get an occasional A and an occasional B minus -- the assertion supports their experience, but by no means reflects the truth. The more time one spends going over practice exams and model answers the better one prepares one's self to spot issues and re-create arguments. HTH

Time spent studying definitely impacts the range of grades one can expect on an exam, albeit to a limited extent. Look at it in extremes -- the guy who spends 6 months studying torts is going to do better than the guy who started studying Monday. Nobody disputes this. And yet if this is true, the same logic applies to the projected grade ranges for the student who studied 6 weeks before exams and the student who pulled 4 all nighters the week before -- intelligence and other external factors aside, the former will always do better.

Sure there is an arbitrary element to law school grading, but it's NOT a complete crapshoot. The people who say this are the medians who get an occasional A and an occasional B minus -- the assertion supports their experience, but by no means reflects the truth. The more time one spends going over practice exams and model answers the better one prepares one's self to spot issues and re-create arguments. HTH

This logic only works if the two students were of relatively equal ability to begin with. Put me in a grade competition with a 1L from a 4th tier school and regardless of the study time, I will probably pwn him. OTOH, put in in the same competition with the top 5% at HYS and the same will certainly happen to me. Study time doesn't make up for stronger critical thinking and analysis skills.

Time spent studying definitely impacts the range of grades one can expect on an exam, albeit to a limited extent. Look at it in extremes -- the guy who spends 6 months studying torts is going to do better than the guy who started studying Monday. Nobody disputes this. And yet if this is true, the same logic applies to the projected grade ranges for the student who studied 6 weeks before exams and the student who pulled 4 all nighters the week before -- intelligence and other external factors aside, the former will always do better.

Sure there is an arbitrary element to law school grading, but it's NOT a complete crapshoot. The people who say this are the medians who get an occasional A and an occasional B minus -- the assertion supports their experience, but by no means reflects the truth. The more time one spends going over practice exams and model answers the better one prepares one's self to spot issues and re-create arguments. HTH

This logic only works if the two students were of relatively equal ability to begin with. Put me in a grade competition with a 1L from a 4th tier school and regardless of the study time, I will probably pwn him. OTOH, put in in the same competition with the top 5% at HYS and the same will certainly happen to me. Study time doesn't make up for stronger critical thinking and analysis skills.

Not everyone in the T4 is a complete slouch you know. Put you in with an average person from the T4 and sure, but the people who are on full ride at the T4 are usually pretty bright. They either chose T4 because they didn't quite understand how the rankings would impact their career opportunities, or they had a specific goal in mind that didn't require a prestige degree.

Not to turn this into another T14 v. TTTTTTTXYZY thread, just sayin' the over generalization a lot of people use about the students at T3/T4 would be less inflammatory if it wasn't so..... over generalized.

Time spent studying definitely impacts the range of grades one can expect on an exam, albeit to a limited extent. Look at it in extremes -- the guy who spends 6 months studying torts is going to do better than the guy who started studying Monday. Nobody disputes this. And yet if this is true, the same logic applies to the projected grade ranges for the student who studied 6 weeks before exams and the student who pulled 4 all nighters the week before -- intelligence and other external factors aside, the former will always do better.

Sure there is an arbitrary element to law school grading, but it's NOT a complete crapshoot. The people who say this are the medians who get an occasional A and an occasional B minus -- the assertion supports their experience, but by no means reflects the truth. The more time one spends going over practice exams and model answers the better one prepares one's self to spot issues and re-create arguments. HTH

This logic only works if the two students were of relatively equal ability to begin with. Put me in a grade competition with a 1L from a 4th tier school and regardless of the study time, I will probably pwn him. OTOH, put in in the same competition with the top 5% at HYS and the same will certainly happen to me. Study time doesn't make up for stronger critical thinking and analysis skills.

The students at any given school are not competing against students from different tiers of schools or of vastly differing ranges of intelligence (generally speaking), so your point is moot.

Time spent studying definitely impacts the range of grades one can expect on an exam, albeit to a limited extent. Look at it in extremes -- the guy who spends 6 months studying torts is going to do better than the guy who started studying Monday. Nobody disputes this. And yet if this is true, the same logic applies to the projected grade ranges for the student who studied 6 weeks before exams and the student who pulled 4 all nighters the week before -- intelligence and other external factors aside, the former will always do better.

Sure there is an arbitrary element to law school grading, but it's NOT a complete crapshoot. The people who say this are the medians who get an occasional A and an occasional B minus -- the assertion supports their experience, but by no means reflects the truth. The more time one spends going over practice exams and model answers the better one prepares one's self to spot issues and re-create arguments. HTH